If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think Sarah Palin is a good "cheerleader", though I can't really envision her as a President. I still sense too much of "shoot from the lip" with her. However, that doesn't mean that sometimes she can hit the target:

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

- Sarah Palin

I'd have to agree that we already went to the wall over WMD in Iraq ... if that wasn't enough death and destruction to deter Assad (or whoever used the gas in Syria) from using gas on civilians again, what on God's green earth could we do with a piddling two-days of air strikes, much less after telegraphing the intended sites a month in advance?

If the AQ-connected rebels win on their own, they could get their hands on Assad's chemical weapons. If we help the rebels win, they will get their hands on Assad's chemical weapons. And the interests of the US or any of the civilians there in the ME are improved how?

Why don't we just "telegraph" to both parties: You know, guys, after thinking this over further, we think you fellas should just settle this yourselves. To the Israelis we could also say: If you need any materiel to defend yourselves from any spillover from these nutcases, we'll be glad to send you whatever you need.

Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 09-01-2013 at 12:21 AM.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

So, now we have the San Antonio setting off shore with a couple thousand Marines aboard. If we are not going to put boots on the ground.....what exactly is their purpose? Maybe we could get Admiral Kimmel to line them all up nice and neat. And, yes.....to me it looks like Mark Emmert is running this show.

A recent study found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer then the men who mention it.

I'll reply to you as I did to Bill Spitzer a couple of weeks ago. I find that your replying to me using my Christian name, (which is known, and not hidden,) using your RTF personna. which is is hidden behind an anonymous user name, to be somewhat creepy. We do not know each other that I know of, and I find the casual familiarity to be inappropriate on this forum. You may address me by my user name, JDogger, or JD, as I sign my posts.

JDogger

JD, where is your Christian name visible on your post? I must be missing something. (Not that I'm looking all that hard)

So, now we have the San Antonio setting off shore with a couple thousand Marines aboard. If we are not going to put boots on the ground.....what exactly is their purpose? Maybe we could get Admiral Kimmel to line them all up nice and neat. And, yes.....to me it looks like Mark Emmert is running this show.

Mark Steyn has called this "the accidental war" ... Obama put his foot in his mouth by talking about a red line, and now he's trying to save face ...

Actually, from what I read of the quote WRT the red line, he didn't specify military action ... God knows he's pretty good at turning a general comment (remember the Rose Garden Benghazi statement) into something else later. He sure could have done a better tap dance on this one.

Then I ask, why would Assad bother to use these chemical weapons? He's already been doing just fine using conventional warfare. Why would he risk setting up a situation like getting any kind of retaliation from the US? I really don't think Russia wants to get into a real war with the US.

The only ones who really stand to gain from this would be the rebels. Could they have infiltrated the Syrian army forces to set this up? If the rebels were responsible, that would upset the administration's "narrative" about supporting the rebels in Syria. Does this remind anyone else of protecting the "narrative" surrounding Benghazi? If the rebels are made up of people who don't mind tearing out a man's organs and eating them, are they above doing something like this? If the rebels were responsible, and it was to come out, it's real possible that even a lot of Ds could start abandoning the sinking ship. Such a revelation would mean ignominy, if not impeachment, for Obama. The house of cards would crumble.

Does it sound like I no longer trust these people and the lengths they would go to for a cover-up? You'd be correct.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

IWhy don't we just "telegraph" to both parties: You know, guys, after thinking this over further, we think you fellas should just settle this yourselves. To the Israelis we could also say: If you need any materiel to defend yourselves from any spillover from these nutcases, we'll be glad to send you whatever you need.

My sentiments also - I really felt sorry for the way they treat some of their citizens (Females, where's the outrage). But those in the position of authority have chosen to be incredibly stupid about prosecuting anything in the ME. Where's Patton when we need someone of his bent? My feeling, not one nickel more for direct conflict, but more to Israel, they know how to deal with those people.

While the country will gain measurable skills in the use of prosthetics, the PTSD thing is being abused in all too many ways, I know that for a fact. & the cost to taxpayers will go on & on.

Originally Posted by dback

So, now we have the San Antonio setting off shore with a couple thousand Marines aboard. If we are not going to put boots on the ground.....what exactly is their purpose? Maybe we could get Admiral Kimmel to line them all up nice and neat. And, yes.....to me it looks like Mark Emmert is running this show.

I'm not as tired of war as I am tired of a bunch of dunces prosecuting it. NR has a good article on Ike this month - beware the Military-Industrial complex. It's time to deal with our problems at home, & make our cities safe. The ME is a money pit.

BHO played a lousy game of brinksmanship and got his hand called by Assad...now he actually needs the House/Senate to bail him out and save face...either way he is going to spin it to his political advantage , if the votes go against intervention and along party lines, he will blame the R's for not coming to the aid of humanity, if by some chance he gets the votes he will opt out and try to show that he has the world's best interest at heart

All my Exes live in Texas

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Contacted all my elected officials last night. We can not continue to police the Middle East without the full commitment of the international community. Also, we pick and choose what genocide we involve ourselves in. How many people have been killed in parts of Africa that we just ignore? If we are going to stand against tyranny we should do it every time it happens. We can't afford to do that.

I believe our international policy should be that we punish, unmercifully, those that do us DIRECT harm. We can help our closest allies defend themselves only in extreme circumstances. We should not be involving ourselves in ANY more civil wars. Period!